Talk:Owasippe Scout Reservation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An entry from Owasippe Scout Reservation appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 02 February 2006. |
 |
 |
Owasippe Scout Reservation is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article was the project's Portal article of the month (March 2006). |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Needed
This article wants badly for a History section. Problem is, short of pawing through 100 years of newspapers, the usual source for such information is Oral History, hence the conflicts of information between current sources about basic facts. Any bit of Scouting history related to Owasippe, or information about the camps' history itself that can be verified is sorely needed. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, any information about the ecology of the reservation would also go far in improving the article. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] expansion request
In compliance with Scouting WikiProject policy on sub-council entities, I propose the expansion of this article into a larger Chicago Area Council article, with information added from Scouting_in_Illinois#Chicago_Area_Council. Local articles really need to be council level rather than by camp or lodge. Examples of good Council articles include Cradle of Liberty Council and Chester County Council, all others have been or are stubs, and we really are trying to avoid sub-council articles. Chris 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since this applies to a camp and not a subunit of a council, I don't think the policy applies. In fact, having looked at said policy and the associated discussion, I find no mention of articles for camps at all. Besides, detailed descriptions and histories of the most prominent camps are more readily available (and, IMHO, more interesting) than those of councils. There's already enough information here to merit its remaining a separate article, and it appears no pressing need to split off the CAC section from the Scouting in Illinois page. Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- True, the RulesStandards page doesn't mention council camps and reservations by name (we should fix that), but they are considered subunits of councils. IMHO the size of this article is borderline as to make it part of a CAC article or leave it separate. If this article were expanded, it would easily warrant standing alone. Then a CAC article could be made with a summary and main link about this article.Rlevse 10:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- expand, as per nomination and discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards. Chris 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vanity Discussion
By adding a section of Staffperson of the year, we can not only expand the article there by preventing it from being merged with a CAC article, and also recognize these parts of OSR history that it lacks. True there are not any "famous" staff people of the year, but they have made extraordinary contributions to the camp and scouting community and also are recognized by their peers. This section has been added already, but deleted by over-zealous wikipedia checkers who do not agree that this has a place here, when in fact it is part of the history of Owasippe (especially if the list could be completed). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.21.125 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- WP:NOT a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. I also happen to know that this anonymous user is one of the persons on the mentioned list (since he yelled at me via an online messaging program), and as such this is an issue of vanity.-- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, "Name withheld to avoid vanity argument" is tantamount to admitting you're wrong. Why do you keep adding it? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Swim Area
I added a second photo of the Camp Stuart swim area, taken from the same position in 2006. ADH 20:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
I would like to bring up the fact that many External Links on this page are not in accordance with the External Links guidelines. Specifically "The Scarlet Sassafrass" and others. I think this section needs to be revamped and those links need to be removed. Some guidelines that apply to this deletion include, but are not limited to:
- Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
- A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
Do these sites really contain accurate and especially NEUTRAL material? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Seanhaneberg 15:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- After waiting for an addition to this discussion, and since there was a lack of it, I've deleted three links that had POV concerns. Seanhaneberg 00:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- The Owasippe BBS is not in accordance with External Links Guideline 7 stating that "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums" should not be included. Link has been deleted.
*[http://www.owasippe-bbs.com/ The Owasippe BBS - LEAVE THE LINK ALONE, SEAN!!!]
- I moved this comment to the discussion page. ADH 18:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've not been on wikipedia much recently, else I'd have chimed in sooner, but I agree with Seanhaneberg on this one. --Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*[http://www.owasippe-bbs.com/ The Owasippe BBS - Compromise by adding a new LINKS section where this link and the Scarlet Sassafras can be put, making it clear that these sites do not fit with the usual external links as stated by Wiki...]
Moved compromise suggestion: ADH 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how i feel about that suggestion. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not just a place to put links which are clearly slanted in one way. I would say no to a new links section, as it is not even encyclopedic in itself. Also, whoever keeps adding the BBS link in, it might be a better idea to create an account and make your case heard instead of defacing the page. Seanhaneberg 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm the owner and operator of the Owasippe BBS and I have been the one who keeps adding the link. I didn't want to start an account for this one thing, but whatever now. I didn't know the link didn't conform to any rules when I first added it. I understand that it doesn't fall in with Wiki's guidelines, but I still think that site like mine and the Scarlet Sassafrass should have a place since they are Owasippe-related. Therefore, I proposed a compromise. Create a separate link section, put those two links in it and write whatever disclaimer you want making people fully aware that this section of links isn't objective, etc. That way everyone is happy. There's nothing wrong with it and even though Wiki is encyclopedia in nature, that shouldn't preclude adding pertinent links even though they don't conform to that nature.
Also, the Owasippe BBS can be a source of information, particularly first hand information for campers and staffers. Such a valuable source of information shouldn't be disregarded simply because it's in the format of a message board. That's my case. - Cable-X1
- It really has nothing to do with being "happy" or being unhappy for that matter. After looking at each link in the BBS, any pertinent information there could easily be found on the OSA website or on the Chicago Area Council site (i.e. interview times and locations). Also, your require registration to post, if im not mistaken, which is also against the external link guidelines. It seems this is more a matter of site promotion rather than informing people on Owasippe. Seanhaneberg 15:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I freely admit that it is a little bit of site promotion. Of course, I would like people to come to my site and participate. You used to be on staff? How come you won't sign up?
Back on track though...I gave this some thought and actually, the whole Owasippe article is questionable on a few levels. You and I know that there's very little "officially" recognized sources on the history of Owasippe, if any. No one has written an actual history book, so most of the history of Owasippe is passed by word of mouth (oral history, as you stated above). So by Wiki's rules, all that information that is passed orally cannot be included in the Owasippe article on Wiki...that is, unless you can find hard evidence and I'd like to see where you will find that. Something written on camp stationary doesn't count and I'd like to see what newspaper articles are going to cover the story of Chief Owasippe and his sons....AND if there is such a newspaper article, then that article OBVIOUSLY got their information from word of mouth too. So you see, the point I'm trying to make is that the MAJOR source for information about Owasippe is oral history and thus CANNOT be included in the Wiki article. So you want to exclude all the great stuff we heard at camp cuz it doesn't fit in with Wiki's "rules." I think the Owasippe article is one of those exceptions to the rules. Why isn't the story of Cheif Owasippe in the article? It darn well should be, but it can't be included cuz of the rules. I think the rules should be a little bent in this case or there should be new rules to accomodate important information that isn't documented in texts yet. Owasippe clearly falls into this category. So basically, I challenge Wiki's rules and your stance with them cuz I think there's important information being excluded when it should be included and it's being done so by rather narrow-minded rules. Not all things in life fit neatly into a rule book. Get my drift?
Back to the BBS issue. I believe it should be included based on my argument above. If oral history is the MAJOR source of info on Owasippe, then the BBS is a great place to get it....provided people join and share. As for the registration to post bit, that's immaterial in light of my argument. -- Cable-X1
- Alright, let me try to break down your most recent argument. You state “I gave this some thought and actually, the whole Owasippe article is questionable on a few levels.” If you actually read the article, instead of just reposting your website link, you would see that the article has been written very factually but someone who I would consider to be an utmost rule follower. The first section gives factual information like its location and size. These can hardly be called “oral history.” The next section gives information on section camps, past and present. I doubt anyone can contest that there used to be, for example, Camp Stuart. Now the wildlife section could be challenged, except for the fact that there was a bio-blitz completed by The Nature Conservancy, who in my opinion are highly qualified in that field. On a personal note though, I do believe there are bears living in the forest, but this has yet to be proven. If it is hard evidence you are looking for, the bio-blitz can be found in each section camp Nature Center or you can discuss acreage with the property manager. I’m definitely not saying there should not be a section on Chief Owasippe; I agree with you there. That though, has little to do with your addition of a message board link in promotion of your own site. So staying on that subject, you write “If oral history is the MAJOR source of info on Owasippe, then the BBS is a great place to get it....provided people join and share.” At last count, you have 12 registered members. The Owasippe Myspace group has nine times that amount, but that link isn’t being placed into the page. And as a whole, your entire argument is immaterial in my opinion.Seanhaneberg 03:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Country reference
I looked around at other Wikipedia artices.
Articles about cities often say In the U. S. State of Michigan, but articles about other things, (Hope College, [[Wabash College], for instance) do not qualify the city/state location with the country.
I think it would make the overall Wiki harder to create if we went in to everything associated with a city and state and added a country.
- ADH 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Legend of Chief Owasippe
I removed this section as it is a verbatim copy from http://www.owasippe.com/viewpage.asp?id=123, and appears to violate that site's copyright. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The "Legend" had been kicking around for long enough that I'm not sure anyone can claim authorship, other than possibly the Chicago Area Council. That said, I support its removal as being unencyclopedic. - Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Useless Information
Does anyone think that discussing staff olympics for example is just completely useless? It has nothing to do with Owasippe itself, it's really just something staff does to occupy a weekend. It sure would not be in an encyclopedia. As with the "pranks" section. Seanhaneberg (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree - a lot of the recently added information is definitely Not Notable. Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
